Richard Dawkins

Soapy Joe again. I asked Richard Dawkins to say a few words on the subject, and he kindly obliged. You will see that he’s just as impressed with the seriousness and intellectual depth of our political campaigns as I am:

“The fact that political candidates, even those of education and intelligence like Howard Dean, are obliged to feign religious faith in order to stand a chance of getting elected, makes the United States the laughing stock of the civilized world.”

8 Responses to “Richard Dawkins”

I will agree with Dawkins on the point about ‘feigned religious faith’, but additionally, I wonder how many of the most devout and truly convinced ‘believers’ are simply either misled due to indoctrination from an early age, or are ‘feigning’ on an extreme level (the questions are not so easy to dismiss); so extreme in fact that I would find it akin to a mental deficiency. Maybe the benefits (if any) of self-deception should be brought to light first. A shame really that the votes are more important than the truth. The creators of the ‘God shaped hole’ seem to be winning this one (for now)…

It should come as no surprise that Howard Dean sprouts wings and turns suddenly spiritual when he visits the former Confederacy, particularly when Dixie voters are overwhelmingly Southern Baptist. It may be cynical and hypocritical of normally secular politicians–“even those of education and intelligence like Howard Dean”–to play the religion card, but it is the only way to get elected in a country where 80 percent of voters are committed believers. Feigning spirituality is no different than feigning compassion for the poor, minorities, or seniors who cannot afford cheap drugs. Politicians will do any disgraceful thing to get elected, and I doubt this is exclusive to the U.S. As for America being the “laughingstock of the civilized world,” I’m not sure who is laughing, but it is certainly not the millions of enlightened Europeans who swallow wholeheartedly our crappy pop culture.

Hm. But is it ‘the only way to get elected in a country where 80 percent of voters are committed believers’? Is that necessarily true? Is it automatically the case that one has to be like the majority of voters in all particulars in order to get elected? Or is religion a special case, and if so, why? and how do we know, and in what sense, and are there statistics to back that up, etc.

And then, are we sure that 80% of voters are committed believers? Is the percentage for voters not perhaps different from the percentage for the population as a whole? And then those believer statistics notoriously have to be carefully unpacked – it depends on how you define it. Gallup always comes up with very high numbers (higher than 80%, in fact), but surveys that break things down in more detail indicate that the higher numbers include people with just some vague hopeful idea that there’s Something.

But even if the 80% figure is solid, it is sometimes possible for people to vote for people who are different from themselves.

And then there is the consideration that it is precisely that kind of demagogic crap that Lieberman is trafficking in that *creates* the perceived impossibility to get elected without grovelling to religion. So there is every reason to upbraid him for it.

And finally, my point (and, I would surmise, Dawkins’ too) was not that it’s a surprise, but that it’s a bad thing.

**

Dawkins is famous as a public educator and brilliant popularizer and supporter of science, which I regard as very far from a pity. He is also one of the few public intellectuals around willing to speak honestly about religion, which I also regard as far from a pity.

I can’t agree. Is it possible that Dawkins only *seems* to simplify, because there are so few blunt atheists who write for large newspapers (among other media)? Is it possible that the ingrained habit of polite deference to religion has trained us to think that anything else is unacceptable? Is it possible that there are disadvantages to such a situation? I must say, it seems so to me.

Dawkins is blunt, probably more so than he needs to be, and comes off as arrogant to many religious believers. But then, this is as much due to his command of scientific data and theory as it is his tone. Those who do not share this expertise find it intimidating. And in scientific inquiries, how you feel doesn’t really matter–here is the evidence, here is the conclusion, deal with it.

All of this overt religiousity really is an embarrassment to the United States. Having started out with the sound principle of the separation of Church and State, they have forgotten this principle and the reasons behind it. They have inherited the fruits of reason but rejected rationality itself, like wealthy but indolent heirs. And when the population of a democracy are ignorant and incapable of critical thinking, they not likely to enjoy democracy for long.

Dean would have been better simply to say that his religious opinions are his own, and, in accordance with the separation or church and state, it is inappropriate to discuss religion on a political platform. Bush’s ‘Faith Based Initiatives’ divert public funds to Evangelical Christian churches. This is a violation of American Law. It’s time someone pointed that out.

And I think that in a sense bluntness is needed – that Dawkins is not really blunter than he needs to be, because the bluntness is salutary. I could be wrong about that, it could be that the cost is too high. It often happens to me that I put things bluntly, in an attempt to clarify, to get rid of fuzz and wool and euphemistic blurring, and all that happens is that people think I’m being rude. But then one could argue that people only think that, about Dawkins’ bluntness as well as about mine, because they’ve been so habituated to tactful euphemism about religion that the truth looks rude. I think it’s in an effort to disrupt that habituation that some of us resort to bluntness.

It is a massive embarrassment, the overt religiosity. And even some people who ought to know better don’t fight back – it’s infuriating.

(Some people of course do point out the violation of law, but not enough of them, and not nearly loudly or bluntly enough.)